Thursday, June 20, 2013

Palin Is Right: Let Someone Else Determine Syria's Fate

Sarah
Palin is often criticized for misstatements or controversial comments.
Of course, were she a female Democrat with a flamboyant style, she would
be labeled "brave" and "courageous" by the press.

And Palin has once again made a bold statement, one I am sure will
enrage those who love to stay upset with her. Speaking on the topic of
whether the United States should arm Syrian rebels, Palin suggests that
we "let Allah sort it out." And if recent history is any indication,
Palin is absolutely right.

Our track record of losing American lives in combat or to acts of
terrorism by taking sides in nations where religious factions are
battling has, on the whole, been less than fruitful. Just consider one
of the many headlines this week. A once inconceivable effort by the U.S.
government to hold "peace talks" with the Taliban appeared to be on the
edge of collapse as the leader of Afghanistan, whose freedom we fought
for, complained about the U.S. giving the Taliban legitimacy in meeting
with its leaders.

Once again, blood and battles leave the U.S. in a
no-win situation, trying to play the "father figure" to the world.

It does little good to assert that the Syrian government should be
condemned by other major world powers for what appears to be the
admittedly deplorable use of chemical weapons against its own people,
when Russia chooses to block such a condemnation. Our nation basically
has been held hostage by a virtual U.N. Security Council writ large. No
matter what effort we have attempted to build as a united coalition of
countries against nations where we have deemed there to be weapons of
mass destruction or the use of weapons against helpless citizens, those
efforts usually have resulted in a hodgepodge of participation with
little respect.

But more importantly, our nation is in no position to continue
removing one enemy simply to replace that leadership with slightly less
hostile yet still anti-American leaders.

It's tempting to get involved in every nation where tyrants reign and
people are dying. But we are not the fiscal giant of a country we were
in decades past. And our efforts, going all the way back to Jimmy
Carter's attempt to stand by a longtime ally, the then Shah of Iran,
typically have proved to lay the groundwork for volatile and deepening
hatred of Americans. In Carter's case, it was a choice of following U.S.
tradition, and he paid dearly for that choice with an ensuing hostage
crisis that cost him reelection.

But now the United States is expected not merely to stand by allies,
but also to topple governments and regimes. And to what end? More than
1,000 people lost their lives this May in protests in Iraq, the nation
we "rescued" under President Bush. It is hard to make a case that
America's policy of "intervene at any cost" still makes sense today.

Few other than academicians and some members of the U.S. Senate truly
understand the full implications of not sending American tax dollars to
arm protesters in Syria. And one might argue they know too much for
their own good. The factions in Syria are diverse, and motives on all
sides are murky.

Yes, there are tyrants and bullies around the globe. The poverty that
hundreds of millions endure around the world is unimaginable and, in
fact, truly not comprehended by most Americans.

But with so many here who cannot read or find a job, who have
children with empty stomachs and little future, why are we supposed to
rescue those who, ultimately, if given power, probably would dislike us
as much as those they wish to replace?

Does this mean the United States should become an isolated country
with a similar foreign policy?

The answer is no, except in instances in
which our efforts likely will not advance our nation's long-term goals
and will more than likely create more enemies determined to attack us
from within for our "imperialist" ways.

We have reached the point where we are in no position to be the
policeman in a so-called "Arab Spring" that is unlikely to produce
anything but "April showers" that lead to more "May deaths" such as
those we witnessed last month in Iraq. It appears Palin is correct. We
should let the authority those in such nation's ultimately respect
determine their future, and that certainly is not the United States.

Oh, Yeah, the Economy

The recent Obama administration scandals shift the
spotlight from the economy. Yet the recovery remains depressingly
sluggish, with the labor force participation rate at a 34-year low as
millions of able-bodied, able-minded Americans simply stopped looking
for work.

With President Obama in the fifth year of his presidency, let us
examine the effect of the stimulus program, tax hikes, Obamacare and
additional regulation on the economy. It isn't pretty.

For the richest Americans, their net worth has fully recovered. For
the non-rich, the recovery tells a very different story. At the start of
"recovery" in 2009, the mean net worth of the lower 93 percent of
households was $139,896. By the close of 2011 -- the latest year
available -- it had fallen 4 percent, to $133,817. Food stamp usage sets
new records. So far this fiscal year, over 22 million households have
received food stamps, up from less than 15 million in 2009. While the
stock market has recovered, most Americans have not. The biggest
investment for most Americans is their home and the equity in average
home remains 28 percent below its 2006 peak.

How does this recovery compare to other post-World War II recoveries?

An Associated Press article said: "Since World War II, 10 U.S.
recessions have been followed by a recovery that lasted at least three
years. An Associated Press analysis shows that by just about any
measure, the one that began in June 2009 is the weakest. ... Economic
growth has never been weaker in a postwar recovery. Consumer spending
has never been so slack. Only once has job growth been slower. More than
in any other post-World War II recovery, people who have jobs are
hurting: Their paychecks have fallen behind inflation." According to
Wall Street Journal economist Stephen Moore, "We've had the worst, by
far -- not by a little bit, by far -- the worst recovery from a
recession since the Great Depression."

Before President Obama entered office, the national debt stood at
about $9.9 trillion. It is now estimated at $17.4 for 2013. Obama added
more debt in his first term than President George W. Bush did in two
terms. And to what end?

What about Obamacare, marketed as way to provide the uninsured with
health care coverage -- all while "bending the cost curve" down?

During last year's presidential campaign, House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "Everybody will have lower rates." But
according to independent analysts, those purchasing insurance through an
individual plan -- the way about 10 percent of Americans currently get
their insurance -- will likely see substantial rate hikes. The state of
California recently released estimates showing increases from 64 to 146
percent.

Economist Jonathan Gruber designed the Massachusetts plan known as
Romneycare. Obama hired Gruber to design Obamacare. In November 2009,
Gruber told The Washington Post's Ezra Klein:

"What we know for sure the
bill will do, is that it will lower the cost of buying non-group health
insurance." After Obamacare passed, Minnesota, Colorado and Wisconsin
hired Gruber as a consultant to estimate the impact of ObamaCare on
their states. For Colorado, Gruber found that individual policy buyers
would pay 19 percent more. For Minnesota, he estimates an increase of 29
percent. For Wisconsin, he expects a 30 percent increase.

Obamacare also applies to full-time workers and defines them as
working 30 hours or more. So many employers are simply reducing hours of
employees to get under than threshold. Reuters found that half of the
Wal-marts they recently surveyed have hired only temporary
employees. One Wal-mart manager in Alaska says, "Everybody who comes
through the door I hire as a temporary associate. It's a company
direction at the present time."

What about the Obama tax hike on the "rich"?

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco just released a report that
called Obama's tax hikes a "drag" on the economy: "Surprisingly,
despite all the attention federal spending cuts and sequestration have
received, our calculations suggest they are not the main contributors to
this projected drag. The excess fiscal drag on the horizon comes almost
entirely from rising taxes."

Obama has also imposed billions of dollars in new regulations.
According to the Heritage Foundation, regulatory costs increased by
almost $70 billion during the first term of the Obama administration.

Bottom line: The policies of this tax, spend and regulate
administration have produced an anemic recovery. Head-in-the-sand
partisans try to explain it away by blaming Bush, the "unpaid for wars,"
recalcitrant House Republicans, or the luck of the draw. Compared to
five years ago, 8 million more people are no longer in the workforce
today. Twenty-three million are underemployed, meaning people are
working fewer hours than they would like or have accepted a job for
which they are over-qualified.

The one silver lining is this: Obama's left-wing collectivism is
getting a full airing -- and it is not working. Obama has inadvertently
taught -- or in some cases re-taught -- one of the most important laws
of economics: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Not even in a
rock-star administration.

Putin to Cameron: "Syrian rebels are the same as those who killed Lee Rigby"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

He is right. They have the
same ideology, the same belief system, the same goals. Obama must know
this. And he must not care. "Vladimir Putin tells Cameron at G8: 'Syrian
rebels are the same as those who killed Lee Rigby,'" by Joe Churcher
for the Belfast Telegraph, June 18:

Arming the Syrian rebels could deliver weapons into the
hands of the sort of people who killed Drummer Lee Rigby, Vladimir Putin
warned.

The Russian president drew a direct parallel with the "violent
assassination" of the soldier in Woolwich as he set out his hostility to
Western efforts to aid the opposition to Bashar Assad's regime.

Mr Putin spoke out at a press conference marking the close of the G8
summit in Northern Ireland which produced a joint position from world
leaders that could pave the way for a peace conference to find a way out
of the deadly struggle for control of the Middle Eastern country.

Resistance from Russia meant the final statement made no reference to Assad's future.

But Mr Putin insisted that he had not been isolated in the talks with
the other seven leaders - claiming that some agreed with him that there
was not yet proof the regime had used chemical weapons.

It was the discovery of what the US said was convincing evidence that
led President Barack Obama to say Washington could arm the rebels.

Britain and France - both in the G8 - led efforts to lift an EU arms
embargo but Prime Minister David Cameron insists no decision to do so
has been taken amid a political backlash at Westminster against any such
escalation of British involvement.

Asked about the issue, Mr Putin, speaking through an interpreter,
defended his decision to continue supplying weapons to the regime, which
he said was no more than completing legal contracts.

And in a direct message to Mr Cameron, he added: "Recently the
British people suffered a huge loss. It was a tragedy next to his
barracks on the streets of London. A violent assassination, a very
brutal killing of a British serviceman.

"Clearly the opposition is not composed all of this but many of them
are exactly the same as the ones who perpetrated the killing in London.

"If we equip these people, if we arm them what is going to control
and verify who is going to have these weapons, including in Europe as
well.

"So we call all our partners, before making this dangerous step, think about it very carefully."

The Immigration Bill/Refugee PRM – A Portrait of a Country Under Siege

Propagandists are attempting with much success to attack any American
citizen who stands against the Immigration Bill and secured borders as a
racist. Have we not grown tired of this worn out term used to slander
anyone who defends our Nation’s Sovereignty? This is not about a racial
war between Hispanic and Caucasian despite what liberal/progressive
media paints. This is OUR country regardless whether your last name is
Schmidt, O’Brien, Lopez, Francois, or Jones.

If you are not Native
American and your ancestors came to this country during the 17th Century more than likely they came from England. During the 17th
Century approximately 175,000 Englishmen colonized the New England
area. Fleeing from England’s tyrannical government, seeking religious
freedom they consisted of Judo-Christians. Historians estimate that
fewer than one million immigrants perhaps as few as 400,000 crossed the
Atlantic during the 17th and 18th centuries. From 1836 to 1914, over 30
million Europeans migrated to the United States.

On June 28, 1968, two
democratic Senators, along with heavy backing by Senator Ted Kennedy
pushed through a bill, against the outcry of the majority citizens of
the United States. As President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law
at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, its proponents assured that
passage would not influence America’s culture significantly. President
Johnson called the bill “not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect
the lives of millions”, while Secretary of State Dean Rusk estimated
only a few thousand Indian immigrants over the next five years, and
other politicians, including Senator Ted Kennedy, hastened to reassure
the populace that the demographic mix would not be affected; these
assertions would later prove wildly inaccurate. The Bill lifted
immigration restrictions from Latin American, Asia, Middle East and
Africa. Before passage of the Hart-Celler Act, immigration accounted for
only ten percent of population increase in the U.S. Ethnic and racial
minorities US Census Bureau rose to 36.6 percent as measured by the
results from the 2010 census. Similarly, during the same time period the
non-Hispanic white population in the United States decreased from 75
percent of the overall US population in 1990 to 63.4 percent during the
year 2011. It is estimated that before the year 2032 non-Hispanic whites
will be a minority in the United States

Is anyone surprised that the threat from
al-Qaeda is now bigger than ever before, largely because of the Obama
Regime’s policy of disassociating Islam from Islamic terrorism?

The
threat posed by al Qaeda terrorism around the world continues to
increase despite President Barack Obama’s recent claim that the central
group behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks is on the path to defeat,
according to U.S. and foreign counterterrorism officials and private
experts. The U.S. government’s counterterrorism paradigm is misguided
because the forefront of global Islamic jihad is not al Qaeda, but the
Muslim Brotherhood “we are now partnering with as a matter of policy.”

Free Beacon
While terrorist threats still exist, “the core of al Qaeda in Pakistan
and Afghanistan is on the path to defeat,” the president said.

However, a
U.S. counterterrorism official said the threat posed by al Qaeda is
growing. “From Africa to Pakistan, it is spreading systematically,” the official said. The
official blamed the Obama administration policy of focusing its
counterterrorism efforts almost exclusively on central al Qaeda.

The focus on Pakistan and Afghanistan
resulted in a lack of targeted counterterrorism efforts in other
locations, the official said. The official added that counterterrorism
efforts have been weakened by the administration’s policy of
dissociating Islam from al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorism. The policy was a key effort of John Brennan, White House counterterrorism chief during the first Obama administration. As CIA director, Brennan has expanded the policy of limiting links between Islam and terrorism at the agency.

The result is that Islamist terror groups are flourishing, posing direct threats to the United States and to U.S. interests outside the country, the official said.

That assessment is bolstered by a new report by
the private Lignet intelligence group. The report made public Tuesday
says the U.S. government’s overreliance on sanctions and surveillance
has limited the war on terror. The result is “a decentralized al Qaeda structure—and a much greater threat,” the report said.

“Al Qaeda has transitioned from a hierarchical cell structure to a franchise organization that is now responsible for four times as many terrorist attacks a year as it was before 9/11,” the report said. “Al
Qaeda training camps are now being established on the Arabian
Peninsula, in Africa, countries of the former Soviet Union, and
Southeast Asia.”

U.S. counterterrorism efforts in
Southwest Asia, including a steady series of armed drone attacks against
al Qaeda leaders, have resulted in central al Qaeda moving out of the
region. York Zirke, head of
Germany’s federal criminal police agency, told a conference in Russia
recently that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are shifting
operations from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Syria, northern Africa,
Yemen, and other countries.

“Speaking about the situation in the
world, it has to be reiterated that al Qaeda and organizations
associated with it are not halting their activities, but the centers
of its activities have moved from the area close to the Pakistani and
Afghani borders to other regions such as Syria, Northern Africa, Mali,
and Yemen,” Zirke said during a conference in Kazan, Russia, on June 6, according to Interfax.

The U.S. official outlined gains by al
Qaeda both ideologically and operationally in expanding its reach as
well as developing affiliates in key regions targeted by Islamists over
the past several months. Al Qaeda has moved rapidly to expand in parts of east, west, and north Africa, helped by the so-called Arab Spring.

A key affiliate, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, known as AQIM, and the Somalia-based al Shabaab group are the two main groups operating and expanding in Africa. The Nigerian al Qaeda group Boko Haram also emerged as a new affiliate and is posing a significant threat to the region.

About 4,000 French troops were dispatched to Mali in January to battle al Qaeda terrorists.AQIM is expanding despite the French military intervention. A BBC report from
May 29 stated that the expansion is not new. “Militants and armed
radical groups have expanded and entrenched their positions throughout
the Sahel and Sahara over the last decade under the umbrella of
[AQIM].” French troops announced a
day later they had uncovered an AQIM bomb factory engaged in making
suicide bomber vests in northern Mali.

U.S. intelligence agencies recently
identified a new AQIM training base near Timbuktu in Mali. An al Qaeda
training manual discovered in Mali revealed that terrorists are training
with SA-7 surface-to-air missiles, the Associated Press reported.

Al Qaeda affiliates in Libya are moving into the power vacuum left by the ouster of the regime of Muammar Gadhafi.The main al Qaeda affiliate there is Ansar al Sharia, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2012,
attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi that killed
four Americans, including Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

France’s
government recently said Paris has become increasingly alarmed about al
Qaeda activities in Libya and is considering a deployment of troops
near Libya for counterterrorism operations.

French President Francois Hollande
said in a speech last month that Libya-based jihadists represent the
main security threat to North Africa and also to Europe. He told a
reporter May 23 that the terrorist threat in Mali “began in Libya and is returning to Libya.” The concerns are based on recent intelligence reports that al Qaeda and other jihadists groups have new training camps in the southern Libyan desert.

Further east in Africa, Egypt’s Muslim
Brotherhood government is creating an environment that is allowing al
Qaeda to develop in that country.

A U.S. intelligence official has said reports from Egypt identified al Qaeda groups operating Al-Azhar University in Cairo.
The university is said to be a covert base for al Qaeda organizational
and training activities that is developing a jihadist network made up of
many different nationalities.

Al Shabaab in Somalia continues to
conduct attacks, with some armed fighting among various groups within al
Shabaab. The group remains a key al Qaeda affiliate. Attacks related to al Shabaab continue to increase, according to U.S. officials.

One particular concern for security officials are reports that al Qaeda is moving into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.
A U.S. official said in May that al Qaeda elements were conducting
small arms training in the mountainous areas of the Sinai Peninsula in
preparation for fighting alongside jihadist rebels in Syria. The
al Qaeda affiliate in the Sinai was identified by U.S. officials as
Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM). The group’s logo is similar to that of al
Qaeda—a black flag, an AK-47, and a globe.

Saudi Arabia has been battling the affiliate al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which tried several high-profile airline bombings against the United States. The group is led by several former inmates of the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and is very active against the government of Yemen.

Earlier this year, a leaked memorandum from Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry revealed that Riyadh is exporting al Qaeda terrorists to Syria. The memo from April 2012 disclosed that 1,239 prisoners who were to be executed were trained and sent to “jihad in Syria” in exchange for a full pardon.
The prisoners included 212 Saudis and the rest were foreigners from
Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, Somalia, Kuwait,
Afghanistan, and Iraq and included Palestinians.

Syria’s al Qaeda group is the al Nusra Front, which has emerged as the most powerful rebel group opposing the forces of the Bashar al-Assad regime.

Obama said in his National Defense
University speech that the “lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates”
and domestic jihadists remain a threat. “But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11.”

The Lignet report said the use of
sanctions and financial penalties against al Qaeda produced the
unintended consequence of transforming al Qaeda into a coalition of
loose, localized, autonomous terror cells.

“In terms of financing, al Qaeda’s
shuria or high command council, no longer plays a central role in
allocating expenditures or soliciting funds,” the report said. “Instead,
terrorist financing has moved further into the ‘gray’ economy. Cells
raise funds from a combination of charities, independent criminal
ventures, and licit businesses.”

Crime is now the main source of al
Qaeda funds and criminal activities by the group include extortion,
hijacking, theft, blackmail, the drug trade, and kidnapping for ransom. “Counterterrorism efforts that target the financing of terrorism are a work in process,” the report concludes. “The measures employed by the United States and others in the last 12 years have reshaped rather than resolved the terrorist threat.

Joseph Myers, a retired Army officer
and specialist on the ideology of Islamist terror, said U.S. efforts to
target and kill al Qaeda leaders have been successful. But al Qaeda
affiliates are spreading “from the Horn of Africa, across North Africa
and post-Gaddafi Libya into central Africa to Dagestan and like-minded
bombers in Boston,” he noted.

“Al Qaeda is an idea, not simply an organization and ideas are not easily ‘killed,’” Myers said in an email. The
U.S. government’s counterterrorism paradigm is misguided because the
forefront of global Islamic jihad is not al Qaeda, but the Muslim
Brotherhood “we are now partnering with as a matter of policy,” he said.

The doctrine of Islamic jihad remains the key ideological threat that must be recognized,
he said. Until that is realized, “we will continue to have national
security failures of analysis and prediction and not only al Qaeda, but
other Islamic jihadist groups will continue to emerge and spread,” Myers
said.

Fred Fleitz, a former intelligence analyst now with Lignet, said al Qaeda has shifted tactics toward “a multitude of smaller, low-probability attacks.” “This includes recruiting members behind U.S. borders through Internet-based efforts to find and radicalize ‘home grown terrorists,’” Fleitz said in an email.

“I am especially concerned about the
recent plot to bomb a Toronto to New York train which was backed by al
Qaeda members in Iran,” Fleitz said. “This was a good example of what al
Qaeda can still do.” “We are also
seeing al Qaeda franchises and other Islamist groups growing in strength
in Mali, Somalia, and Nigeria. Seven of nine Syrian rebel groups are
Islamist and there is an al Qaeda presence in Syria.”

Sebastian Gorka, a counterterrorism
expert and military affairs fellow with the Foundation for Defense for
Democracies, said the administration has created a narrative that
asserts the United States is solely at war with the remnants of al Qaeda
Central and that the group is on the decline since bin Ladin was
killed.

“The
rest of the national security mission in counterterrorism has been
reduced to the amorphous ‘counter violent extremism’ which is of course
fallacious since as a nation we are not threatened by general violent
extremism – Basque separatists or abortion clinic bombers – but a
specific brand of religious extremism: global jihad,” Gorka said in an email.

“Anything that countermands the official narrative, such as the the Fort Hood shooter or the Boston bombers, has to be undermined with labels such ‘workplace violence’ or ‘loser jihadis’
since anything else would mean that al Qaeda is very much alive and
well,” said Gorka, who teaches U.S. national security at Georgetown
University. “This represents a politically driven distortion of
objective threat assessments.”

Americans ballistic over NSA 'dragnet'

Dozens of organizations tell Congress those responsible need to be accountable

Dozens
of American organizations from left to right on the political spectrum
are demanding a halt to the National Security Agency’s vast “dragnet” of
snooping on Americans and accountability for those who launched the
program.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation,
in an announcement on its website, said the groups signed a letter to
Congress demanding a full-scale investigation into the NSA’s
surveillance programs, “an end to illegal spying” and transparency.

“It’s been less than two weeks since the first NSA revelations were
published in the Guardian, and it’s clear the American people want
Congress to act,” EFF said.

The organization said the first step to publicly account for all of
the NSA’s surveillance capabilities is to organize an independent
investigation, similar to the Church Committee in the 1970s.

“This type of public process will ensure the American people are
informed, once and for all, about government surveillance conducted in
their name,” EFF said.

The NSA has been under fire since a whistleblower, Edward Snowden,
released documents showing that it was collecting data on cell phone
records and other details on millions of Americans.

The controversy erupted just as the Internal Revenue Service was
under fire for a program that targeted conservative organizations with
probably illegal treatment and the FBI was found to be accessing the
telephone records of journalists.

All that was on top of the Benghazi and Fast and Furious scandals that remain unexplained by the Obama administration.

The groups, with a wide range of priorities and interests, also have created a website called “Stop Watching Us” to collect signatures for the letter.

The website has gathered nearly a quarter of a million signatures in a week.

“The StopWatching.us campaign has called for a number of specific
legal reforms in addition to calling for an investigation, including
reform to the controversial Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which
was cited in the shockingly broad FISA order that demanded Verizon hand
the NSA phone records data on millions of its U.S. customers,” said EFF.

“The groups also call on Congress to reform the FISA Amendments Act,
the unconstitutional law that allows, nearly without restriction, the
government to conduct mass surveillance on communications going into and
out of the United States.”

From the letter to Congress:

As reported, the U.S. government is extracting audio,
video, photographs, emails, documents, and connection logs that enable
analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time. As a
result, the contents of communications of people both abroad and in the
U.S. can be swept in without any suspicion of crime or association with a
terrorist organization.

Leaked reports also published by the Guardian and confirmed by the
administration reveal that the NSA is also abusing a controversial
section of the PATRIOT Act to collect the call records of millions of
Verizon customers. The data collected by the NSA includes every call
made, the time of the call, the duration of the call, and other
‘identifying information’ for millions of Verizon customers, including
entirely domestic calls, regardless of whether those customers have ever
been suspected of a crime. The Wall Street Journal has reported that
other major carriers, including AT&T and Sprint, are subject to
similar secret orders.

This type of blanket data collection by the government strikes at
bedrock American values of freedom and privacy. This dragnet
surveillance violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution, which protect citizens’ right to speak and associate
anonymously, guard against unreasonable searches and seizures, and
protect their right to privacy.

The letter asks Congress for reform of the Patriot Act “to make clear
that blanket surveillance … of any person residing in the U.S. is
prohibited by law.”

Also sought is a committee to investigate and tell the public the
extent of the Obama spying efforts and accountability for those who are
responsible.

Among the signatories are American Civil Liberties Union, American
Library Association, Americans for Limited Government, Bill of Rights
Defense Committee, BoingBoing, Center for Democracy and Technology,
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Constitutional Alliance, the EFF,
Firedoglake, FreedomWorks, Government Accountability Project, Green
Party of the United States, National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, People for the American Way, Taxpayers Protection Alliance and
Tenth Amendment Center.

FBI Director: Yes, We Use Drones Domestically… No, We Can’t Say How, When Or Why

Wackobirds, you are officially vindicated in your worries
over domestic drone use: FBI Director Robert Mueller told Senate
lawmakers Wednesday that the agency has several drones and has yet to
adopt strict policies and guidelines for use of the aircraft.

But according to Mueller’s testimony, the lack of policies to protect
American citizens’ privacy has not deterred the FBI’s use of drones for
domestic surveillance operations.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, Senator Chuck
Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Mueller, “Does the FBI use drones for
surveillance on U.S. soil?”

Mueller’s answer was a straightforward affirmative, though he added
that the FBI only “very seldom” conducted surveillance of American
citizens on American soil with the unmanned aircraft.

“It’s very seldom used and generally used in a particular incident
where you need the capability,” Mueller responded when Senator Dianne
Feinstein (D-Calif.) prodded him on the matter. “It is very narrowly
focused on particularized cases and particularized needs.’’

The director said that he wasn’t sure if the FBI had any “official”
agreements with agencies like the National Security Agency, the
Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Defense to receive
assistance and share information collected in the agency’s use of
drones.

“To the extent that it relates to the air space there would be some
communication back and forth [between agencies],” Mueller provided as a
vague answer to a question about interagency drone activity over U.S.
soil.

With regard to providing the public any further information regarding
FBI justification for drone use and other domestic spy tactics, Mueller
gave the impression that transparency is not high on the government’s
list of priorities.

“There is a price to be paid for that transparency,” Mueller said. “I
certainly think it would be educating our adversaries as to what our
capabilities are.”

Op-ed:Negotiating with terrorists...the mother of all distractions By: Diane Sori

Terrorists don’t negotiate for if they did they wouldn’t be terrorists.

I guess Barack HUSSEIN Obama never got that…or got it and just
doesn’t care that the United States of America does NOT negotiate
with terrorists…EVER!

And so within the next few days representatives from the Obama
administration will sit down with terrorists…will sit down and negotiate
with the Taliban…the very same Taliban tied to al-Qaeda who MURDERED
3,0000 Americans on a fateful day in September almost 12 years ago…the
very same Taliban tied to al-Qaeda that took America into an ongoing war
of almost 12 years duration…a war that has cost thousands of American
troops their lives and maimed thousands more….the very same Taliban who
just a few days ago killed another four of our troops near Bagram Air
Base in Afghanistan…these are the people…people on our US terrorist
list…people who, under direct orders from this miserable excuse of a
president, our country is going to sit down and negotiate with.

And by agreeing to meet with terrorists Barack HUSSEIN Obama is
basically surrendering to the enemy…spitting on the blood of American
troops lost…defaming and dishonoring their sacrifices…discounting their
lives and their memory as inconsequential…saying he has to do what our
troops could NOT do.

‘Long and complex negotiations for a peaceful settlement to the war
in Afghanistan’ is how senior Obama administration officials are trying
to sell these talks to ‘We the People’…talks that should NEVER have been
agreed to because if our troops had been allowed to fight to win as
they were trained to do…fight to kill as many of them before they killed
so many of us…instead of fighting a ‘politically correct’ war with
their hands tied behind their backs because heaven forbid too many of
Obama’s brethren would be killed…America would NOT be sitting down and
negotiating with terrorists.

Negotiating with terrorists…NO…groveling to terrorists…for Barack
HUSSEIN Obama has our beloved America groveling for peace with the very
ones out to kill us all.

And if that simple fact doesn’t ignite a flame of discontent within your belly NOTHING will.

And while this farce of a negotiation comes with conditions for the
Taliban that include cutting all ties with al-Qaida, stopping the
violence, and accepting Afghanistan’s constitution (like any of this
will ever happen), this is just another ‘it’s all about me’ dog-and-pony
show for Obama and crew, for they are NOT negotiating with America’s
enemy but negotiating with those Barack HUSSEIN Obama supports…caters to…and makes excuses for.

And isn’t it oh so convenient that this negotiation announcement came
on the same day that US led international forces handed over control of
Afghanistan’s national security to Afghan forces, setting the stage for
most foreign troops to leave the country by the end of 2014.

Yeah, let’s have useless talks with terrorists who are just playing
along with lip service and with crossed fingers…biding their time…for
the Taliban are terrorists who will once again override the country when
we're gone…after all this president gave them our departure date so
they could plan accordingly.

And lets NOT forget the in-your-face lies told to the American people by this administration,
when back in January reporters asked whether our government was
considering releasing the ‘Blind Sheikh’…Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman…the
mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and were told:

“The United States does NOT negotiate with terrorists,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

And when pressed again by a different reporter asking, “The
terrorists are asking for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman and Aafia
Siddiqui from the US prisons. Do you have any reaction to that?" Nuland answered:

“I’ll say it again — the United States does NOT negotiate with terrorists.”

LIAR…for just 6 months later the Obama administration is doing just
that…and why…for while we know this administration’s loyalties do NOT lie with
America but with America’s enemies, the simple fact is this is the
mother of all distractions calculatingly used to take the focus off all the scandals engulfing
this administration and this president…scandals slowly unraveling truths so
damning that they must stay hidden at all costs.

Truths like it was Barack HUSSEIN Obama who gave the order to ‘stand
down’ in Benghazi…truths like it was Barack HUSSEIN Obama who gave the
go ahead to ‘target’ conservative groups for added scrutiny when
applying for 501 C-3 status…truths like it was Barack HUSSEIN Obama who
personally ordered the spying on American citizens.

These truths and so many others must stay hidden at all costs, and
what better way than to throw in some one-on-one with terrorists to do
it…but NOTHING positive will come out of negotiating with those out to
kill us for NOTHING positive will come out of the mouths of those who
have elevated taqiyya into an art form, and I am NOT talking about the
Taliban but about Barack HUSSEIN Obama himself.